Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Why doesn’t God, if he exists, give us at least this much evidence? I don’t have faith in any supernatural gods - that is because no supernatural entity has ever impressed its existence upon me, let alone its ability to take any interest in my affairs.

This is an example of the limited “either-or” or “mutually exclusive or” type of reasoning. It seems to me that it flows from the fallacy of considering oneself as the only source of truth. Some people call this fallacy “relativism”; others call it subjective reasoning. Basically the “either-or” approach looks at one’s own experiences, memories, learnings, emotions, capabilities, and so on. For example–“that is because no supernatural entity has ever impressed its existence upon me, let alone its ability to take any interest in my affairs.” Considering “me” and “my” as the only basis of knowledge is indeed limiting. It is either me and my knowledge or nothing.

What is missing is the choice to use both objective reasoning *and *subjective reasoning. Objective reasoning does not exclude subjective reasoning. Subjective reasoning does not exclude objective reasoning. In the area of rational thought, humans can use the “both-and” approach to seek truth about life. That is if they consider truth about life important.

From the dawn of human history, humans have recognized the existence of both the natural world *and *the supernatural world. We know this by the multitude of mythical traditions. As a point of historical fact, the verbal traditions could be correct or not. The historical fact lies in the capability of the human mind to recognize that the non-material does exist no matter how it is explained.

Inherent in humans is the intellectual desire for truth. Of course this desire can be numbed. Fulfillment of the desire for truth can be willfully limited by the limits one places on the sources of truth; for example, limiting truth to one’s own experiences of material/physical surroundings. It is either one’s own subjective thinking about life or nothing.

Philosophically, truth is considered objective in that it exists independently. Objective truth does not depend on a person’s approval or acceptance. Objective truth has been in existence since the dawn of human history. However, humans can reject objective truth. Rejection of objective truth does not destroy objective truth.

Objective truth, such as the existence of the spiritual non-material world, can be demonstrated by both subjective *and *objective reasoning. However, when one decides that the only way to know the spiritual world is to limit its knowledge to one’s personal experiences, then truth becomes either my chosen way of knowing or nothing. What is being omitted is not the spiritual world, but rather the opportunity to know the spiritual world.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[tonyrey]

So I choose to believe that the sun will (apparently) rise tomorrow? If I ‘choose’ not to believe this, am I delusional?

There is no absolute guarantee the sun will move tomorrow. Our belief is based on the principle of induction but many people have chosen to reject that belief (thinking the end of the world is nigh) and others because they are solipsists or idealists. It is only your opinion (and that of the majority) that they are deluded.

Our beliefs and our feelings inform our behaviour. If we sincerely hold beliefs, we will act accordingly. If choice enters into the process, it is in the particular actions through which we demonstrate our beliefs and feelings, not in the holding of those beliefs and feelings in the first place.

As babies we are taught by our parents what to do and how things behave. For mature individuals beliefs precede actions - except in the case of instinctive and impulsive behaviour.

I am not asking for conclusive, indubitable evidence of the existence of gods - I’m asking for any evidence at all that is not better explained by alternative hypotheses.

The onus is on you to explain why you have a better explanation. So far you have not accounted for your power of self-control… If all your beliefs were thrust upon you permanently you would still be a Christian. Were you compelled to become a pantheist? Aren’t you responsible in any way for your decisions?

There is abundant evidence for an unbiased person that the universe cannot explain itself, that life is an immensely valuable gift and truth, that goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love are not figments of our imagination but facts that require explanation. Since the demise of logical positivism materialism has been an obsolete theory rejected by every reputable philosopher on account of the unverifiability of the verification principle.

Why does the universe even need to explain itself?

It is unscientific and unphilosophical to believe that any physical phenomenon has no cause.

Most theists don’t believe the existence of God requires explanation.

God is not a physical phenomenon…

Goodness, beauty, justice, love etc are not ‘facts’ in the sense of being things in the universe, but they are the shorthand by which we recognise particular relationships and states of affairs - without these states of affairs obtaining, we would have no concept of love, beauty, goodness, justice, freedom and so forth.

These relationships and states of affairs are intangible and usually they refer to intangible entities such as persons. Our concepts and recognition of these facts are also intangible, scientifically inexplicable and irreducible to chemical reactions.

I think you’ll find that metaphysical naturalism is still very much alive as a philosophical position. It’s wishful thinking on the part of those who want to believe in the existence of supernatural entities to prematurely consign it to the intellectual dustbin.

Then please explain how the verification principle can be verified in terms of physical events?

As I keep saying, we don’t know everything there is to know about the physical universe, and we may never do so - why suppose that we already know everything of which nature is capable?

That argument could be used as a reason for rejecting any original explanation you wish to reject. It is also based on the assumption that **everything **is physical even though the meaning of your statements cannot be reduced to physical events.

None of these things constitute the kind of evidence that compels belief in the Christian God, or any god, for that matter.

There is certainly no evidence whatsoever that compels belief that **everything **consists of atomic particles.

Even if I am to make a conscious decision about what I believe, this is something I would do by weighing the evidence. When there’s no evidence to weigh, what’s to be done?

What is the evidence that **everything **consists of atomic particles?

On the contrary, the taking of a particular and personal interest in human affairs is an integral characteristic in the definition of the God of Classical Theism.

A particular and personal interest in human affairs does not entail privileged treatment for individuals who demand coercive evidence.

Bearing in mind that the biggest factor of influence on a person’s religious faith is the religious faith in which they have been raised as children, how much freedom and choice do you really think a person has about what they believe?

Many individuals, including many on this forum, have chosen to reject the beliefs or disbeliefs of their parents - even when they were still quite young. We are capable of thinking for ourselves and making up our mind from the age of reason.

I’m looking for states of affairs that are best explained by the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

Do your existing beliefs make sense of all the facts? If so how?

Sorry, but that’s not what I’ve thus far found.

No need to apologise. The whole point of life is to reach our own conclusions.

On the contrary, what I see is excuse after excuse for why one should still believe God exists despite all these states of affairs that shouldn’t obtain if the God of Classical Theism exists.

The same objection is applicable to your belief in “physicalist pantheism”…

This notion that if God made his presence known, it would somehow curtail our freedom to believe - if we even have it - is, in light of the above, just another excuse.

Do you really believe you would have no choice if a permanent sign “I exist” appeared in the sky? Or every time an earthquake occurred everyone were prevented from being injured or killed?

 

[tonyrey]

This is an example of the limited “either-or” or “mutually exclusive or” type of reasoning. It seems to me that it flows from the fallacy of considering oneself as the only source of truth. Some people call this fallacy “relativism”; others call it subjective reasoning. Basically the “either-or” approach looks at one’s own experiences, memories, learnings, emotions, capabilities, and so on. For example–“that is because no supernatural entity has ever impressed its existence upon me, let alone its ability to take any interest in my affairs.” Considering “me” and “my” as the only basis of knowledge is indeed limiting. It is either me and my knowledge or nothing.

What is missing is the choice to use both objective reasoning *and *subjective reasoning. Objective reasoning does not exclude subjective reasoning. Subjective reasoning does not exclude objective reasoning. In the area of rational thought, humans can use the “both-and” approach to seek truth about life. That is if they consider truth about life important.

From the dawn of human history, humans have recognized the existence of both the natural world *and *the supernatural world. We know this by the multitude of mythical traditions. As a point of historical fact, the verbal traditions could be correct or not. The historical fact lies in the capability of the human mind to recognize that the non-material does exist no matter how it is explained.

Inherent in humans is the intellectual desire for truth. Of course this desire can be numbed. Fulfillment of the desire for truth can be willfully limited by the limits one places on the sources of truth; for example, limiting truth to one’s own experiences of material/physical surroundings. It is either one’s own subjective thinking about life or nothing.

Philosophically, truth is considered objective in that it exists independently. Objective truth does not depend on a person’s approval or acceptance. Objective truth has been in existence since the dawn of human history. However, humans can reject objective truth. Rejection of objective truth does not destroy objective truth.

Objective truth, such as the existence of the spiritual non-material world, can be demonstrated by both subjective *and *objective reasoning. However, when one decides that the only way to know the spiritual world is to limit its knowledge to one’s personal experiences, then truth becomes either my chosen way of knowing or nothing. What is being omitted is not the spiritual world, but rather the opportunity to know the spiritual world.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

A superb post!

 

[cho_pilo]

I have made my points and others have agreed, since things are quite obvious. I will not waste my time further discussing this issue with you.

If you consider the bond angles such as the water molecule, or the tetrahedal chemicals, or the rings, and so on - they resemble things designed, and yet if we bust our noggins learning why they have these geometries, we get down to the rather unusual shapes of atomic orbitals, and at a superficial level, our questions about bond angles are resolved. Yet this underlying geometry is precisely why the helix is a helix. And the particular geometry of the codons gives rise to this.

This is why I think my answers the mail insofar as why a thing is what it is: because things have intrinsic properties, and when you allow all kinds of combinations of reactions to occur, those intrinsic properties will be exercised, and you will get a wide spectrum of results. I would liken this to Monte Carlo simulation: after sufficient trials, we would expect a given result.

I think probability theory is poorly understood. I respect your opinions on the subject, but one thing we learn from it is the difference between random and deterministic processes, the meaning and reasons for the various common probability distributions in nature, the intrinsic properties arising from repetitive trials, and how to search for patterns statistically - by correlation, moments about the mean, etc.

If we begin with just two basic ideas, that some things are intrinsic, and some things are random, we can associate them, and set up simulations, and sometimes you will get a sense of order in the result. But it’s not designed order. It’s chance order. So a mental disconnect occurs between the reality we randomly generated (simulated) and the apparent order of the result, which simply means we were wrong.

Suppose I have a pixelated screen, in which I am randomly toggling the pixels. Suppose at some point an image suggestive of the Virgin Mary appeared on the screen. If this were done in public, in certain locales known for experiencing such appearances, I would fully expect to have my screen enshrined as a holy object. But it was random. I can calculate the odds of producing a particular picture, run the simulator,count how many trials until Mary appears, and repeat this over and over, and the average of these numbers will approach the expected number, that is, one out of every combination possible.

The same procedure could be attempted for constructing a small fragment of DNA, and an expected number of trials can be estimated. And if I tried to do this for the human genome, a monstrously large number of trials would be required. But of course that isn’t what started the ball rolling (under the theories of abiogenesis and evolution), it was something very primitive, so not nearly as many trails were needed. Yet there is a likelihood of some kind, some kind of number. And it seems that there were about a billion years or so to run through these trails until a replicating sequence appeared.

Once something replicates, the game changes. Now the odds of a clone is exceedingly higher, and the population will bloom, at some rate, which has a statistic. we can speculate that this change in the primordial soup also included aberrations (mutants) and so in fact various forms would eventually appear. Once we have various types, we can imagine that the first time two of them collide, and join end to end, we have a bew species with a longer set of codons.

Without dragging on I guess you see my gist. All I am saying is that the probability of things happening, and the intrinsic properties that allow them to happen, can give rise to order, even though it’s randomly caused. But when it starts replicating, a new intrinsic property arises, namely, that things will keep replicating, and they will keep mutating.

These are just some of my thoughts about the chemical interactions.

 

[Sair]

This is an example of the limited “either-or” or “mutually exclusive or” type of reasoning. It seems to me that it flows from the fallacy of considering oneself as the only source of truth…

The either/or reasoning squares with logic itself - things cannot be simultaneously what they are and what they’re not. According to logic, something is either true or false - it cannot be both at the same time and in the same circumstances.

For the record, I don’t consider myself the only source of truth - but I do consider myself the only one capable of perceiving truth for myself. People predominantly act upon their own beliefs, not upon the beliefs of others which they don’t share. This is not to say that I just ignore others’ explanations of reality - I weigh them against my own experience and then consider whether their explanation squares with what I perceive to be the case.

I’ve said before that the humanist maxim, “Man is the measure of all things” is not an arrogant statement, but a practical one - we can only operate on the basis of what we ourselves perceive, for we have no choice but to see the world through the means of our own senses and interpret it by means of our own mental capacities. To use a very blunt example, when my mum, who is in the early stages of dementia, speaks of having seen and spoken with her mum the other day - my nan, who died in 1987 - I don’t doubt this is something my mum perceives, but I do doubt that her perception corresponds to external reality. In the absence of short-term memory, perhaps, her long-term memories step in to fill the gaps.

What is missing is the choice to use both objective reasoning *and *subjective reasoning. In the area of rational thought, humans can use the “both-and” approach to seek truth about life. That is if they consider truth about life important.

I certainly don’t doubt that subjective reasoning has an objective basis - we can only perceive the world as subjects of our own sensory experience. Certain states of affairs induce certain feelings and responses in me that they might not induce in others. Some circumstances to which others react passionately are water off a duck’s back to me. People’s responses to states of affairs are directly affected by their individual experiences in life. I don’t see how this obliges me to believe that supernatural entities in which others believe are objectively extant.

From the dawn of human history, humans have recognized the existence of both the natural world *and *the supernatural world.

Recognised or imagined? That is the key question. The advances in science in the last couple of centuries might make it difficult to understand how people in past ages could be ignorant of things and concepts we take for granted, but it’s not hard to see how supernatural explanations can stand in for understanding of how natural processes operate. The trend in science has been for natural explanations to trump supernatural beliefs. Obviously I don’t ::know:: this trend will continue - there may come a point when science has to throw up its hands and acknowledge there are things we can’t explain through natural means - but that point has not yet been reached, and there is no more reason to believe it will be than to believe it won’t be! The question always lingers, though - what if we are ascribing supernatural explanations to natural phenomena? Yes, it works the other way too, but the most parsimonious explanation in either case is that reality is all of one stripe - I have never yet seen any adequate explanation of how natural and supernatural entities may interact.

 

[Sair]

Inherent in humans is the intellectual desire for truth. Of course this desire can be numbed.

I doubt religious believers are motivated by desire for truth to any greater extent than atheists - indeed, from a sampling of the stories of those who arrive at atheism from a religious background, it seems the desire for truth was a strong motivating factor in the process of deconversion. As for relying purely upon one’s own experience, I have a couple of things to say to that - firstly, the avenue to atheism for me was opened by meeting people with different beliefs to mine, and by my realising that the fact these people believed differently to me did not make them any less human, any less approachable, any less personable. Secondly, one of the most powerful arguments against the existence of the God of Classical Theism - despite manifold apologetics offered here and elsewhere - is the problem of evil. Realising that this is a serious philosophical objection involves acknowledging the experience of others - I have not personally encountered any great evil in my life, but it takes only a glance at the news to realise others have encountered it in abundance; I have friends who have had truly horrifying experiences through no fault of their own - should I just suppose this is God’s way of testing them? Should I suppose their suffering was a gift of love from a god in which they don’t even believe?

Philosophically, truth is considered objective in that it exists independently. Rejection of objective truth does not destroy objective truth.

Agreed. Objective truths are those which exist independently of subjective interpretation, whether we like it or not. I’d love to believe that I will see my deceased loved ones again, but on the strength of the evidence - or, rather, the lack of evidence - for an afterlife in which our consciousness persists, I accept this is unlikely to be the case. Needless to say, my acceptance has not been a matter of personal preference.

Objective truth, such as the existence of the spiritual non-material world, can be demonstrated by both subjective *and *objective reasoning.

How? I understand how subjective perceptions can marry with objective observations, but I don’t see how this lends weight to the claim that a supernatural realm actually exists; especially when we have no avenue to claim we know everything about physical reality, such that we can delimit its capabilities in favour of non-physical entities.

However, when one decides the only way to know the spiritual world is to limit its knowledge to one’s personal experiences, then truth becomes either my chosen way of knowing or nothing. What is being omitted is not the spiritual world, but rather the opportunity to know the spiritual world.

I have spent half my life, so far, believing that the spiritual realm was real and present. It never impressed itself on me in such a way that I could confidently claim it made a positive difference to my appreciation of reality. If anything, I’ve experienced a greater sense of wonder, indeed, felt truly humbled, at the capacity for nature to shape itself, without the (name removed by moderator)ut of an essentially anthropomorphic God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If you consider the bond angles such as the water molecule, or the tetrahedal chemicals, or the rings, and so on - they resemble things designed, and yet if we bust our noggins learning why they have these geometries, we get down to the rather unusual shapes of atomic orbitals, and at a superficial level, our questions about bond angles are resolved. Yet this underlying geometry is precisely why the helix is a helix. And the particular geometry of the codons gives rise to this.

This is why I think my answers the mail insofar as why a thing is what it is: because things have intrinsic properties, and when you allow all kinds of combinations of reactions to occur, those intrinsic properties will be exercised, and you will get a wide spectrum of results. I would liken this to Monte Carlo simulation: after sufficient trials, we would expect a given result.

I think probability theory is poorly understood. I respect your opinions on the subject, but one thing we learn from it is the difference between random and deterministic processes, the meaning and reasons for the various common probability distributions in nature, the intrinsic properties arising from repetitive trials, and how to search for patterns statistically - by correlation, moments about the mean, etc.

If we begin with just two basic ideas, that some things are intrinsic, and some things are random, we can associate them, and set up simulations, and sometimes you will get a sense of order in the result. But it’s not designed order. It’s chance order. So a mental disconnect occurs between the reality we randomly generated (simulated) and the apparent order of the result, which simply means we were wrong.

Suppose I have a pixelated screen, in which I am randomly toggling the pixels. Suppose at some point an image suggestive of the Virgin Mary appeared on the screen. If this were done in public, in certain locales known for experiencing such appearances, I would fully expect to have my screen enshrined as a holy object. But it was random. I can calculate the odds of producing a particular picture, run the simulator,count how many trials until Mary appears, and repeat this over and over, and the average of these numbers will approach the expected number, that is, one out of every combination possible.

The same procedure could be attempted for constructing a small fragment of DNA, and an expected number of trials can be estimated. And if I tried to do this for the human genome, a monstrously large number of trials would be required. But of course that isn’t what started the ball rolling (under the theories of abiogenesis and evolution), it was something very primitive, so not nearly as many trails were needed. Yet there is a likelihood of some kind, some kind of number. And it seems that there were about a billion years or so to run through these trails until a replicating sequence appeared.

Once something replicates, the game changes. Now the odds of a clone is exceedingly higher, and the population will bloom, at some rate, which has a statistic. we can speculate that this change in the primordial soup also included aberrations (mutants) and so in fact various forms would eventually appear. Once we have various types, we can imagine that the first time two of them collide, and join end to end, we have a bew species with a longer set of codons.

Without dragging on I guess you see my gist. All I am saying is that the probability of things happening, and the intrinsic properties that allow them to happen, can give rise to order, even though it’s randomly caused. But when it starts replicating, a new intrinsic property arises, namely, that things will keep replicating, and they will keep mutating.

These are just some of my thoughts about the chemical interactions.

Aah, but now we are talking about something different, where I entirely agree with you (surprise!). If you go back to my original post on this,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8987557&postcount=2196

you will see that while I (and with me, the scientific community) assert that DNA is a code, I also claim that it is is undesigned – nature itself ‘wrote’ the code; it was not directly written by a designer.

For the slow growth of complexity from simple beginnings, see also chapter 4 in my article on the evolution website Talkoriginis.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

[Al_Moritz]

If anything, I’ve experienced a greater sense of wonder, indeed, felt truly humbled, at the capacity for nature to shape itself,

I share with you the same sense of wonder, but I believe that God designed nature to accomplish this.

without the (name removed by moderator)ut of an essentially anthropomorphic God.

Well, like you I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic God.

 

[cho_pilo]

Philosophically, truth is considered objective in that it exists independently. Objective truth does not depend on a person’s approval or acceptance. Objective truth has been in existence since the dawn of human history. However, humans can reject objective truth. Rejection of objective truth does not destroy objective truth.

Objective truth, such as the existence of the spiritual non-material world, can be demonstrated by both subjective *and *objective reasoning. However, when one decides that the only way to know the spiritual world is to limit its knowledge to one’s personal experiences, then truth becomes either my chosen way of knowing or nothing. What is being omitted is not the spiritual world, but rather the opportunity to know the spiritual world.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

What theory of truth are you operating with?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

 

[tonyrey]

There is no absolute guarantee the sun will move tomorrow. Our belief is based on the principle of induction but many people have chosen to reject that belief (thinking the end of the world is nigh) and others because they are solipsists or idealists.

I should clarify that in the past many people have chosen to reject the belief that the sun will move tomorrow (not the principle of induction) because they thought the end of the world was nigh. Others did so because they were solipsists or idealists who didn’t believe there is anything to induce!

 

[grannymh]

What theory of truth are you operating with?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

When I am talking about an objective truth, I am not operating with any particular theory of truth. Choose whatever “theory” you wish.

An objective truth means that it exists independently of anyone’s approval. Gravity is an objective truth.

 

[cho_pilo]

When I am talking about an objective truth, I am not operating with any particular theory of truth. Choose whatever “theory” you wish.

If you want to talk like that, then we need to be clear that this is not meant to be a philosophical discussion of any kind.

An objective truth means that it exists independently of anyone’s approval. Gravity is an objective truth.

In that case, it seems that by “objective,” you mean something like ‘pertaining to objects, to the material as opposed to persons.’

 

[cho_pilo]

Aah, but now we are talking about something different, where I entirely agree with you (surprise!). If you go back to my original post on this,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8987557&postcount=2196

you will see that while I (and with me, the scientific community) assert that DNA is a code, I also claim that it is is undesigned – nature itself ‘wrote’ the code; it was not directly written by a designer.

For the slow growth of complexity from simple beginnings, see also chapter 4 in my article on the evolution website Talkoriginis.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

After seeiing this post, it seems I misread your position.
You gave credit to nature (not a divine designer) for the developement from the zygote, onward.

 

[tonyrey]

Al_Moritz:

“From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world.”

The laws of nature are not self-sufficient for the following reasons:

1. No reason has ever been given for the **increase **in complexity.
2. There is no guarantee of success without rational control and direction.
3. The greater the complexity of an entity the greater the probability of failure.
4. Without rational direction there are overwhelming odds against the development of the most complex known structures in the universe.
5. The laws of nature do not explain how the urge to survive exists in inanimate objects.
6. Belief in the self-sufficiency of the laws of nature presupposes physicalism which is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.
7. The laws of nature are simply purposeless regularities which cannot possibly cater for every contingency because they are restricted to a limited range of **physical **events.
8. The laws of nature do not explain how consciousness, rationality, autonomy and purposeful activity are produced by purposeless regularities.
9. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient there would be no need to postulate the existence of a Creator.
10. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The laws of nature are not self-sufficient for the following reasons:

1. No reason has ever been given for the **increase **in complexity.
2. There is no guarantee of success without rational control and direction.
3. The greater the complexity of an entity the greater the probability of failure.
4. Without rational direction there are overwhelming odds against the development of the most complex known structures in the universe.
5. The laws of nature do not explain how the urge to survive exists in inanimate objects.

In other words, you still stubbornly think that God is not smart enough to plan everything with almighty foresight and then simply say “Bang!” and let it happen from the Big Bang onward. So your view of God is that He is an impotent, anthropomorphic God who, just like human designers, cannot foresee all contigencies and needs to correct all the time. What a miserable image.

1. Belief in the self-sufficiency of the laws of nature presupposes physicalism which is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.

1. The laws of nature are simply purposeless regularities which cannot possibly cater for every contingency because they are restricted to a limited range of **physical **events.

1. The laws of nature do not explain how consciousness, rationality, autonomy and purposeful activity are produced by purposeless regularities.

1. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient there would be no need to postulate the existence of a Creator.

1. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.

After +150 pages of discussion you still stubbornly fail to see that ‘self-sufficient’ in that context means that God gave secondary causes the “dignity of acting on their own” – literally quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, see paragraph 306:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

It does not mean that secondary causes could exist without God. As the Catechism (and classical metaphysics) says: “God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes” (paragraph 308).

 

[Al_Moritz]

After seeiing this post, it seems I misread your position.

That’s what I thought, no harm done. I am misread all the time, perhaps because my thinking does not follow stereotype (as you can see in the top part of my posts, I self-identify as Roman Catholic/Freethinker/Skeptic). But if my discussion partners were more attentive, this should not happen.

You gave credit to nature (not a divine designer) for the developement from the zygote, onward.

I gave credit to nature for the development of the first cell, as well.

(Compare also my previous post # 2333; read carefully.)

 

[grannymh]

The either/or reasoning squares with logic itself - things cannot be simultaneously what they are and what they’re not. According to logic, something is either true or false - it cannot be both at the same time and in the same circumstances.

Yes, something cannot exist and exist simultaneously. Nonetheless, in addition, the “either-or” view can pertain to two existing possibilities. One can choose to *either *wear the red dress or the blue dress, both of which are hanging in the closet. Which is true or false, the blue dress or the red dress? What happens when one focuses on only the two dress possibilities and fails to take into consideration the temperature outdoors?

For the record, I don’t consider myself the only source of truth - but I do consider myself the only one capable of perceiving truth for myself.

When I wrote about the “source” of truth, I gave the example of limiting truth to one’s own experiences (plural intended) of material/physical surroundings. Humans have five senses which can be used to experience their material/physical surroundings such as what happens when one wears a light weight dress because blue is a favorite color out into a snow storm.

Of course you do not consider yourself as the only source of truth. You have the gift of common sense. And it is reasonable for you to consider yourself the only one capable of perceiving truth for yourself if I understand you correctly in terms of human nature. Human nature is rational because it has the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. And of course you consider others’ explanations of reality. For example, the weather man’s explanation of the temperature in a snow storm.

To return to the initial sentence in post 2319 which refers to the fallacy of considering oneself as the only source of truth, the operative phrase is “considering oneself” in the sense that one weighs explanations of reality –

“I weigh them against my own experience and then consider whether their explanation squares with what I perceive to be the case.” is your comment from post 2323. Because I see both subjective *and *objective reasoning as being two method’s of evaluating a belief, I do go along with your comment. Especially since I often rely on my own subjective thinking based on experiences, memories, learnings, emotions, capabilities, and so on.

In addition, I do go outside of my subjective self and study the belief objectively. i.e., evaluating the independent existence of what the belief is based on. I try not to limit my knowledge to subjective choice.

When it comes to the existence of God, my suggestion is to go beyond the idea of “no supernatural entity has ever impressed its existence upon me.” because that indicates that only personal subjective reasoning is taking place. The nothing in either it is my experience in the material/physical world or nothing excludes the spiritual, non-material, supernatural realm flat out. However, it is possible for *both *non-theists and theists to recognize the possibility of a non-material realm.

I certainly don’t doubt that subjective reasoning has an objective basis - we can only perceive the world as subjects of our own sensory experience.

In my humble opinion, you would be better off doubting that subjective reasoning has an objective basis. That would free you to explore life, natural and supernatural, objectively. Note: just because one is able to use objective skills does not automatically mean that one has to believe what is learned. The freedom to deny is part of human nature.

 

[Al_Moritz]

1. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.

Nonsense.

1. Your belief in divine Providence does not appear to entail that it is almighty and can foresee and plan everything, see my post above. It appears that I put more, not less, confidence in divine Providence than you do – contrary to all your assertions.
2. God can work miracles whenever He wants, and I have asserted before that He does. However, I refuse to believe that He has to work miracles – when the laws of nature allegedly do not suffice to bring about the ends He envisioned with respect to the development of the natural world and He allegedly has to intervene.

 

[grannymh]

Quote from granny. Objective truth, such as the existence of the spiritual non-material world, can be demonstrated by both subjective *and *objective reasoning.

How? I understand how subjective perceptions can marry with objective observations, but I don’t see how this lends weight to the claim that a supernatural realm actually exists; especially when we have no avenue to claim we know everything about physical reality, such that we can delimit its capabilities in favour of non-physical entities.

First, subjective perceptions are totally different from objective observations so interbreeding is impossible.

Second, when I first used the objective method to discover the non-material realm (via the peerless human species) I did not include any non-physical entities living there. I posted that it was not my intention to debate the existence of God per se. Philosophers could take over if they wished.

Third, my proposal supported various elements of evolutionary theory at the same time that it recognized the presence of the immaterial or spiritual component in the human species and only the human species. It was my humble opinion that the spiritual principles in human nature were sufficient to infer the possibility that the human species descended from one mating couple.

For a number of different reasons, I did not continue posting on that subject. One reason was that I had to verify my impressions of biological theories regarding human nature. By the time I was ready to continue posting, being comfortable with both the biological science realm and the Catholic realm, the ban on evolution discussions was in place.

It is my intention to respect the ban on evolution discussions.

 

[tonyrey]

• The laws of nature are not self-sufficient for the following reasons:

You have failed to refute every single one of my statements…

6.

Belief in the self-sufficiency of the laws of nature presupposes physicalism which is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.

1. The laws of nature are simply purposeless regularities which cannot possibly cater for every contingency because they are restricted to a limited range of **physical **events.
2. The laws of nature do not explain how consciousness, rationality, autonomy and purposeful activity are produced by purposeless regularities.
3. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient there would be no need to postulate the existence of a Creator.
4. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.After +150 pages of discussion you still stubbornly fail to see that ‘self-sufficient’ in that context means that God gave secondary causes the “dignity of acting on their own” – literally quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, see paragraph 306:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p1s2c1p4.htm

It does not mean that secondary causes could exist without God. As the Catechism (and classical metaphysics) says: “God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes” (paragraph 308).

You have still failed to refute **any **of my statements…

The fact that God gave secondary causes the “dignity of acting on their own” does not imply that they are “'self-sufficient” nor that they can cater for **every **contingency nor that God **never **intervenes.

BTW Personal remarks like “you still stubbornly think” and “you still stubbornly fail to see” are unnecessary and out of place in a philosophical as well as a scientific discussion. They do precisely nothing to further your argument in addition to being discourteous…